Benefits Cut...

[armyvern]

What is covered or not depends on the type of accomodation that one has.  It is written in CBI sup paras 208.997(7) to (10).  You can see it here:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/208-eng.asp

Utilities are only covered for Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.  Coincidentally - basic cabal, internet and telephone are also covered for both of Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.

After 4 IR postings ... I am quite aware of that. "Up to the allowable max of your claimable rent" being key. The rest is out of pocket. And to be clear, phone, cable, net etc is "initial installation" covered - certainly not the monthly bill. Now that incidentals are gone ... are they going to reimburse the cost of 1 X long distance call to my family per week to me? All things that "incidentals" used to cover.

Another thing is trips back to family. I have it good ... I can at least travel home on weekends to visit as I can drive there. What about Dude X posted in Edmonton whose wife is posted to Gagetown ... he gets one claimable trip to see his family per year ... yet if he were deployed he'd get one per 6 months. What's the difference - he's not there by choice either. Either way, it baffles me when guys on course have food paid for despite the fact they are no longer incurring that expense at home ... yet they use the same "well you'd have to incur food expenses at home anyway" reasoning to take meal allowance away from others who are not at home. In the sit above, both pers are separated from their families not by choice, but due to the needs of the service - why the difference in travel entitlements to see their families? Or to long distance calls being covered? Or to food being covered?

Make up your minds and make every pers applicable to same rules regarding all of that. Whichever way they decide is good with me ... just apply like logic to all either way, not to just one group.

 

[wesleyd]

Situations like these are why the whole IR thing is being looked at and changed.  And of course the cuts shouldn't bother you, in cases like these, I don't think there should be IR benefits.I agree that the lifestyle choice of never going to move my spouse is something that should not be subsidised.  Unfortunately, the changes have been to SE and not IR - the Venn Diagram overlaps significantly but (as stated previously) the two are not the same thing.  IR needs to be fixed and (I believe) those fixes still need to be made (ie. Max 2 years with 3rd year in extraordinary situations on approval from CMP).

The changes have now been decreed.  So, this is going to happen and it is time now to find mitigation solutions within the mechanisms we have in order to help those pers who rightfully needed the benefit.  To that end, I propose we look to some precedent in Attached Postings to give us a path.

It used to be that mbrs attached posted received SE once in place at the gaining unit.  As TD could anything up to 6 months and attached postings could be anything up to 12 months, this resulted in the absurd situation where pers side-by-side with the equivalent circumstances and attending the same course were receiving different compensation.  To fix this, the entitlement for attached posted pers became the same as TD.  This went off the rails for a bit between Jan 2011 and Feb 2012 at which point the CFTDTI were amended to give the expenditure authority for attached posted pers.

In the case of untrained personnel, the option exists to enrol them into a local BTL and then attach post those members to the successive schools required to get to OFP.  At any point in time when the member is likely to remain under control of the same school/TE for 12 or more months, then the member will receive a restricted posting.  Attached postings could also replace other uses of prohibited postings domestically.

For pers moved unaccompanied, Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs could be amended to extend benefits just as was done for attached postings.  As an unaccompanied move is intended to temporarily position a member at the new place of duty while attempting to bring forward, the inclusion of unaccompanied moves would be consistent with the CFTDTIs compensation package designed to support members who must maintain a temporary living situation (the temporary nature of which keeps things more expensive than for a pers on IR who is settling into a more stable and predictable situation).  This amendment would have to go to TB for approval, because Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs is a TB authorized section (as opposed to one of the CDS authorized sections).

I was on IR for 4 months, unaccompanied for 6 months first. My house was actively on the market and was priced 50k below assessed value ( which was 30k lower than the realtor wanted to list it for). After ten months my house sold and my family got to move here with me. Should someone in a similar situation be penalized for something that is beyond their control?

There is a risk that pers fully intent on going IR could take an unaccompanied move in order to claim the 6 months of TD benefits prior to actually switching to IR.  In the event of such an abuse, the money would be recoverable and the member subject to disciplinary & admin action because A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001 at section 11.2.02 makes very clear that there must be an intent to move the family, and that IR must be requested as soon as it is known that unaccompanied will extend beyond 6 months.


… Anyway, there are guys with much more admin acumen than I in this thread.  I would be interested in thoughts on this.

I was on IR for 4 months, unaccompanied for 6 months first. My house was actively on the market and was priced 50k below assessed value ( which was 30k lower than the realtor wanted to list it for). After ten months my house sold and my family got to move here with me. Should someone in a similar situation be penalized for something that is beyond their control? I had to pay for internet and phone out of pocket as my rent with furniture and utilities was 1600.

 

[blacktriangle]

Joe Landlord sees the CF coming and going. While we are at it --- get rid of this f'n "1 bedroom MAX apartment allowable" rule too!! When every furnished 1 bedroom in town costs 1600 bucks a month (the max claimable and the only thing we are allowed to rent), yet a 2 bedroom furnished apartment goes for 900 (to Joe Blow local) ... who is screwing who? If the CF wants to save money, lose that rule and I can see a bunch of us IR folks moving into bigger apartments, but saving you 700 bucks every month!! I don't think it's rocket science, yet I realize that common sense is extremely rare in certain circles. Find an IR guy with his college going kid living with him, or sharing that apartment? CHARGE his *** with fraud. Recover the totality of your moneies he obtained fraudulently, and leave the rest of us pers who aren't riding the system out of it.  Quite simple really.

As an owner of a property in the NCR, I recently looked at renting it out to someone on IR.  I could charge 1000-1100 a month on it and be perfectly happy doing so. It's a new 2 Bedroom with lots of room and a parking space. I was told that my place didn't meet the IR standard...so yeah, some poor guy on IR will get a crappier place and it will cost the CF more. Brilliant.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

As an owner of a property in the NCR, I recently looked at renting it out to someone on IR.  I could charge 1000-1100 a month on it and be perfectly happy doing so. It's a new 2 Bedroom with lots of room and a parking space. I was told that my place didn't meet the IR standard...so yeah, some poor guy on IR will get a crappier place and it will cost the CF more. Brilliant.

Same here.  I rented my 3 bdrm house in Rockland to an IR guy until they changed the rules.  Funny thing is, rent was only 1300.....

 

[PMedMoe]

"Up to your max rent claimable" being the keywords here. That over and above you are paying out of your own pocket.

Be thankful that you have a rent below the limit (obviously not in a military town) ... others are paying the max rent claimable, but do not have any room left on their max to be able to claim utilities up to their max. Some landlords are scum. When they know the CF will pay max 1600 for rent --- that's what they charge, and for some that's without utilities (and also for some - that's unfurnished so the cost of rental furniture is also coming out of their own pockets). When you are forced into that 1 bedroom because policy dictates such vice their being a "competitive market" of 1 and two bedrooms allowability to force landlords to compete for IR business - you are then forced to eat those utility costs yourself that are over and above the max rate because "that's what incidentals are for". No incidentals anymore. That means = member's own pocket (unless they plan on allowing for those costs to now be claimed to their fullest of the actual charges incurred for such). For some people - it ain't just the cost of food.

I know.  It's not my first time doing this.  But it is my last time.  :nod:

Missed this bit --- akin to what I told mine when it the discussion was reference "30 days reunited throughout the year and you could lose your IR benefits":

OK then, on day 31 when you take my IR benefits away, please do not come knocking on either my military spouse's door at the house nor at my door in my apartment when I don't show up for work in that second location "because I'm not IR anymore; policy says so. Careful what you wish for ..."

Nah, they'd just tell you that your benefits are gone and charge you with AWOL....  :   

 

[armyvern]

...
Nah, they'd just tell you that your benefits are gone and charge you with AWOL....  :   

Yep, and they'd have a year to court martial me (accompanied by my civvy lawyer) for that after my release date (which would be what paperwork I would be submitting at the place of my primary residence on day 31).  ;D

 

[armyvern]

... I had to pay for internet and phone out of pocket as my rent with furniture and utilities was 1600.

Even if your rent wasn't max'd, you'd still have had to pay for your net and phone out of pocket as "that is what incidentals are for". That's why I'm curious as to whether or not they are now going to cover the 1 X long distance call home per week along with the rent ('cause that "incidentals" portion of the SE will be disappearing next month - what about the costs of taking my clothes and uniforms to the laundromat - a necessary expense previously covered as "incidentals" because my washer and drier is at my primary residence??).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We just got a message in changing the posting status of some of our students from prohibited to restricted (authorized).

Some, not all. In line with what MCG is saying, this is one of those mitigation strategies that it appears some of D Mil C is going to use. Hope it carries on.

This is what I was referring to and thinking about a few pages back about AFC, L1's, etc looking for solutions.  I also mentioned the BTAGs, Section 3 several times because I went and read it and saw that the contents of this particular section is the applic part for people in the trg system (exempt OTs who are posted to a BTL vice pre-positioned for Initial Occ trg).

For anyone out there who has troops in the trg system this affects and wants to know what the policies are WRT posting status, training durations, etc etc etc...BTAGs, Section 3 lays it all out.  Included in this Section is the process to request a change in status.

 

[TCM621]

No, I'm not wrong.  You can talk to the Ombudsman until you're blue in the face.  If you haven't exhausted the grievance route, don't expect them to lift a finger to help you out.  They won't.  Again - Read the DAOD on the role of the Ombudsman.

We have obviously have had different experiences with the ombudsman. Their office is quit helpful in giving advice and directing people to the right route. Hey if that wasn't the way it worked for you, I understand.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So is someone on IR no longer getting that up to $400 a month allowance?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We have obviously have had different experiences with the ombudsman. Their office is quit helpful in giving advice and directing people to the right route. Hey if that wasn't the way it worked for you, I understand.

Be mindful that follow-on readers will get advice (good, bad, or otherwise) from threads like these.

While perhaps the big O office has spoken to you and offered advice, have you gone to them with a formal complaint?  An earlier post suggested that is Step #2.  That is wrong advice, full stop.

Don't get your knicker in a knot about it, you haven't been in long enough to know how best to play the game whereas others of us have and have already learned from experience and mistakes.

Suck back and re-load, the wording of the DAOD is clear and while your CofC either doesn't know you've gone there or they have turned an blind eye to it, remember Pte Bloggins might read this in a week or year or whatever, and see "hey this guy went right to the Ombudsmen and nothing happened to him", only to find himself on Remedial Measures and/or Summary Proceeding after doing so and his CofC being made aware.

I suggest you suck back, relax and think before you post again, learn from the experience of others on here who know this system and its rules and realities much better than you do.

Advice like always can be taken, or ignored.  I suggest that caution be exercised when considering the Ombudsmen in any COA.  :2c:

 

[buzgo]

So I have a question:


What about people who are posted to training establishments for 1 year courses? Staff college, LFTSP etc. As far as I know they can either go IR or move their family. It is clearly a temporary situation (doesn't last 365 days) and there are generally no quarters available so IR on the economy is typical. What about this situation? Shouldn't the CFTDI apply? Why are these courses dealt with like postings?

A full move for a 1 year course followed by a full move at the end of the course would end up costing something like 3 x as much a 1 year on IR with meals and SE, correct? 

 

[dapaterson]

So I have a question:


What about people who are posted to training establishments for 1 year courses? Staff college, LFTSP etc. As far as I know they can either go IR or move their family. It is clearly a temporary situation (doesn't last 365 days) and there are generally no quarters available so IR on the economy is typical. What about this situation? Shouldn't the CFTDI apply? Why are these courses dealt with like postings?

A full move for a 1 year course followed by a full move at the end of the course would end up costing something like 3 x as much a 1 year on IR with meals and SE, correct?

Slight tangent:

Perhaps we need to re-think some of those training plans.  Staff college, for example.  With the current mix of DL/residential students there has been no observable performance difference between the two groups.  That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL, with perhaps a short (2-3 month?) residential portion.  That would represent a significant savings to DND - no more moves or IR for the course, and over 100 ATL positions to be re-invested.

 

[armyvern]

So is someone on IR no longer getting that up to $400 a month allowance?

I have no idea as to what the 400$ allowance is that you are speaking of.

Pers on IR were paid up to the max / month in rent monies (that max amount differs by area you are located at).

Here, the max is 1600 bucks. One could claim their rent, and utilities, furniture rental - all with receipts required - to that max limit. Any of those costs over and above that max is out of pocket.

Additionally, one is paid SE (Seperation Expense) at either the high rate (in commercial accommodations: /apartments etc) or low rate (pers in shacks) per day.

Both the low rate SE and high rate SE are comprised of portions ("incidentals", "Seperation Pay", and "meal allowance" [itself a partial amount of the daily meal rate]). Those in the low rate bracket got lower rate SE because shacks have common rooms with cable TV, free laundry facilities, minimum availability of a pay phone etc in the shacks, meals at kitchen etc. Those on high rate SE are paid higher rate as they have to pay  for meals, cook, laundry, insurance on their stuff in the apartment etc etc.

Those monies were deducted (abated) each month by the number of days you were reunited with your F&E ... you do not collect that day's SE if you get to be lucky and go home on the weekend, nor when you are on leave, TD, attach posted, in the field etc. Therefore the amount paid each month varies by member, but it can be higher than 400 bucks a month - it can also be lower.

The message only notes that the meal portion and the incidental portion is being removed (although as shown - those incidentals still must occur for phone, laundry etc - now just 100% out of our own pockets) ... it states nothing about the "separation pay" portion being removed; I have no idea what that "separation portion" amount within the total of either the low or high rate SE is. The message gives the impression that at least that portion will be remaining, but an inquiry to our clerks did not, at this point, yield any answer as to whether that is factual or as to what that amount per day would be - if any.

I am quite certain that this is being looked at by those much higher than me in the food chain to figure all this stuff out. Although, it does bother me that the announced "take away of the benefit" was announced while work is apparently still being done to sort the nitty gritty details at the highest levels and before those who be getting asked the questions at ground level were given any clarifying information for the myriad of questions that one knew were going to be flying it at the ground level.

I am also quite certain that no conspiracy to screw the troops is occurring. I have known for months that IR was being reviewed and that changes were coming although I was not aware (until the message) as to what exactly those changes would be. If someone is IR and was not aware that it "was under review" - that is a personal CoC issue and certainly not any conspiracy by higher. I'm sure time will see it sorted out and remaining questions answered (one would hope those answers come prior to the announced start date of this new policy).

I do though still find it curious that other federal employees have always been entitled to much higher rates when "IR" away from their family - even when being in Ottawa etc, their max rent levels there are much higher, travel to family different in coverage etc etc. I would hope that this "new TB way" is NOT just being applied to us CF members and is applicable to one and all in the federal service ... same town - same max rate and same SE per day rates and no meals covered for them either now. Same TB is governing all of us.

 

[Journeyman]

Staff college, for example....
 
...That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL......

I just felt a tremor in the force.....  ;D

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Slight tangent:

Perhaps we need to re-think some of those training plans.  Staff college, for example.  With the current mix of DL/residential students there has been no observable performance difference between the two groups.  That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL, with perhaps a short (2-3 month?) residential portion.  That would represent a significant savings to DND - no more moves or IR for the course, and over 100 ATL positions to be re-invested.

That will be a natural fallout of this initiative, along with others.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Here's a question for those of you with more financial know-how.

The budget for FY 2012 has been set, has it not? Therefore the money for IR/IRP stuff is still there, this year at least, on paper. Why are they not bringing this change in next March?

 

[dapaterson]

Here's a question for those of you with more financial know-how.

The budget for FY 2012 has been set, has it not? Therefore the money for IR/IRP stuff is still there, this year at least, on paper. Why are they not bringing this change in next March?

The Government announced reductions to DND's budget (or at least reductions to  planned growth - I'm not certain about whether the net has gone up or down) already.  That means that the plans for this year already either cut those funds or reallocated them elsewhere.

So no, the money's not there this year.

 

[Wookilar]

Wookilar, how would changing a posting from Prohibited to Restricted help?

Prohibited basically you are screwed. No move allowed, few benefits remaining.

Restricted (authorized) essentially leaves the authority at the CO level to approve the move of the family. Once the member secures accommodations, the CO can authorize the lifting of the restriction and the family can be moved. Fin authority is in the actual posting message and comes from DCBA or CFSTG (usually).

 

[bridges]

Besides the food expense which will be personal (and I agree with that! But I also agree that guys on TD to courses etc should be paying for their own food as they too would be now NOT incurring those costs at home while they are on course)

I'm not sure why this continues to come up.  Full rations are $554/month.  Even when you factor in the preparation and clean-up time, this will be a significant increase in food costs for most people, compared to eating at home.  I believe one person said this was equivalent to the monthly food budget for their family of 4.  I'm ok with not making money on TD or IR, but people shouldn't be losing this kind of money on basic necessities like food, because of military requirements.  This needs to be fixed.